Suisa v. Holder, No. 08-2343, concerned an Israeli couple's petition for review of a decision by the BIA pretermitting consideration of their applications for adjustment of immigration status under section 245(i) of the INA. In denying the petition for review, the court held that the Attorney General, confronted with the question of whether section 1255(i) applies to grandfather the substituted beneficiaries of labor certifications, reasonably determined that only beneficiaries substituted before April 30, 2001, the date selected by Congress, may be eligible to apply for adjustment of status under section 1255(i), and therefore, 8 C.F.R. section 1245.10(j) is a valid exercise of the Attorney General's rulemaking authority.
Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 09-1025, concerned a challenge to the judgment of the district court in favor of the plaintiff, in plaintiff's ERISA suit against MetLife for terminating her long-term disability benefits. In affirming the judgment, the court held that, although the district court applied a legal standard later abrogated in Champion, it did not err in concluding that MetLife's decision to terminate plaintiff's long-term disability benefits for the applicable period was an abuse of discretion, as MetLife's rationale in terminating plaintiff's benefits was not reasoned and principled, and was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also held that the plaintiff was eligible for an award of attorneys' fees under the Hardt standard, and the district court's award of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of discretion.